County delays action on possible tax increase to aid UMC

By Conor Shine

Published Tuesday, May 7, 2013 | 11:10 a.m.

Updated Tuesday, May 7, 2013 | 3:11 p.m.

There’ll be no infusion of funds to University Medical Center this year from a property tax rate increase.

Clark County Commission members, during a discussion at their meeting Tuesday morning, indicated they needed more information on a potential property tax rate hike to aid UMC. Because the county is required to turn in its fiscal 2014 budget to state officials by May 20, the request for additional information effectively kills such a tax increase this year.

Commissioners agreed a long-term solution needs to be found for the troubled public hospital, which requires a county subsidy every year to cover its losses, partially because of the high number of uninsured patients it treats.

But there’s still a split among board members about the best way to fix UMC. Some favor establishing a dedicated funding source, while others are pushing for a leadership reorganization that would presumably make the hospital more competitive and help cut its losses.

A 9- or 10-cent property tax hike, the largest practical increase, could generate an extra $48 million annually for the county. Next year, the county will provide at least $31 million in subsidy to the hospital, on top of the $100 million it already contributes.

Disagreements about the future of the hospital, which have spilled out into the public over the past months, including during a legislative hearing where three commissioners criticized a UMC-related bill backed by their colleagues, have led to frosty relationships among the board.

“No matter how uncomfortable this conversation may be for some of us because we differ in opinions on how we get there, we’re all kind of saying the same things: ‘This hospital can work,’” said Commissioner Lawrence Weekly, who chairs UMC’s Board of Trustees. “If you take away a lot of the personal feelings and talk about what’s in the best interest of the people that we serve, I think that we really can do this.”

Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani said the hospital has done a good job cutting costs through better management, renegotiating contracts with insurances providers and other steps, but UMC’s core financial issues won’t go away without reliable funding.

She’s been a proponent of finding a dedicated revenue stream, including possibly a portion of property taxes, to minimize the county’s subsidy and free up new money to invest in capital projects and upgrades.

“There may be new ways to create revenue sources, but we shouldn’t be afraid to have that discussion,” she said. “If we want UMC to compete, we have to invest money into that infrastructure.”

Before passing any property tax increases, several commissioners said, more details were needed about the size of the tax, how much revenue it would generate and whether there were any alternative options for funding.

Commissioners requested a special meeting in the coming weeks to delve into UMC-related issues, including funding sources, reporting lines for CEO Brian Brannman and whether to create an independent board of experts to oversee hospital operations.

Although UMC draws a majority of its patients from the valley’s urban core, many residents from outlying suburbs and cities still access the hospital’s services, and many more benefit from its presence in the community, said Commissioner Susan Brager, who argued that the county needs to show residents how UMC benefits them before asking them to help pay for it.

“You don’t know when you’ll have a tragic burn or a trauma on the highway,” she said. “I think we need to make sure people understand what UMC is about and why that greater good it provides is for all citizens.”